Under Trump’s push to overhaul the immigration system, more than 50 federal immigration judges have been terminated from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) since January 2025, with some reports indicating 106 departures when including resignations and retirements. The firings come while the immigration court system is grappling with a historic backlog of cases—roughly 3.4 to 3.7 million at last count.

The administration frames the dismissals as part of a performance-based reform: judges who allegedly failed to adjudicate cases quickly or align with enforcement priorities were removed, reflecting a shift toward faster deportations and stricter outcomes. Supporters see the purge as necessary to improve efficiency in a sluggish system.  Meanwhile, critics — including terminated judges and union representatives — argue the firings were politically motivated or discriminatory. Many of the dismissed judges say they were let go without cause or prior notice, generating fear and uncertainty among remaining staff.

The mass dismissals raise significant concerns about judicial independence and fairness in immigration proceedings. With fewer experienced judges and rapid turnover of leadership roles (including assistant chief immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members), critics warn that the system might sacrifice procedural safeguards in pursuit of speed. At the same time, the administration’s focus on expedited removals and stricter enforcement underscores a tension between “efficiency” and “justice” in the immigration court context.

In sum, while the Trump administration presents the judge-firings as a needed reform to expedite enforcement, the long-term implications for due process, case quality, and courtroom fairness are uncertain. The abrupt removals and ensuing legal challenges could reshape how immigration courts function, for better or worse, depending on whether speed comes at the expense of fairness and independence.